 | | Re: The Nugator Company for Sale ???
|
|
(...) At the risk of getting torched, I would like to inject a few thoughts here. Disclaimer: I know nothing of law, internet law, trademark law, not even traffic laws. I even have been known to have limited thought processes. First, the four letter (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nugator Company for Sale ???
|
|
(...) Some of what you say is true but I'd advocate that you, or others interested in this topic, dig a little... in .publish I believe it was someone posted an absolutely excellent pointer to a trademark case involving Clue Consulting and Hasbro. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nugator Company for Sale ???
|
|
(...) in (...) well written. (...) Hey, excellent pointer. Wow--all that legal stuff. I just read 99% of it and I have to agree with the decision. One statement made by the court judge that I particularly agree with is this: "If another Internet (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | LEGOLAND.CC Auction WAS: (Re: The Nugator Company for Sale ???)
|
|
Kevin, (...) infringement, because the sellers intent was to use the LEGO brand name to motivate someone to buy it. "Make Millions off of LEGO," and all that. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGOLAND.CC Auction WAS: (Re: The Nugator Company for Sale ???)
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <38D83277.B6E578E0@c...eb.net>... (...) it and (...) that (...) judge (...) Without a doubt, that is the seller's obvious intent. What can TLC legally do about intent?? I do not know, but my guess in this situation (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
